What do you think?
-
We call' em fields.
"Throughout human history, we have been dependent on machines to survive. Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony. " - Morpheus
-
Well, since John Simmons got his new TV, he probably will be missing for about two days, but for the rest of you: It has been around two years I think since I have asked this question and I am curious as to if people have changed their minds. Do you use/like the "_" to prefix private members? I personal hate variables prefixed with with _underscores _as _it _can _make _reading _code() _a _pain! In the old days of Assembler and some C code, we lived with it all the time, but I had hoped to never see them again. Now much of the code released by MS has private members prefixed. So, what you think?
Rocky <>< Latest Code Blog Post: SQL Server Express Warnings & Tips Latest Tech Blog Post: Microsoft doing it again!
-
Well, since John Simmons got his new TV, he probably will be missing for about two days, but for the rest of you: It has been around two years I think since I have asked this question and I am curious as to if people have changed their minds. Do you use/like the "_" to prefix private members? I personal hate variables prefixed with with _underscores _as _it _can _make _reading _code() _a _pain! In the old days of Assembler and some C code, we lived with it all the time, but I had hoped to never see them again. Now much of the code released by MS has private members prefixed. So, what you think?
Rocky <>< Latest Code Blog Post: SQL Server Express Warnings & Tips Latest Tech Blog Post: Microsoft doing it again!
-
Well, since John Simmons got his new TV, he probably will be missing for about two days, but for the rest of you: It has been around two years I think since I have asked this question and I am curious as to if people have changed their minds. Do you use/like the "_" to prefix private members? I personal hate variables prefixed with with _underscores _as _it _can _make _reading _code() _a _pain! In the old days of Assembler and some C code, we lived with it all the time, but I had hoped to never see them again. Now much of the code released by MS has private members prefixed. So, what you think?
Rocky <>< Latest Code Blog Post: SQL Server Express Warnings & Tips Latest Tech Blog Post: Microsoft doing it again!
For members: itsDoc For arguements: theDoc For locals: aOK = false; while( ! aOK ) { : : aOK = true; } return aOK;
Beware of programmers who carry screwdrivers - XTalk
-
Can't stand _them. Sorry to butt in on this, but this is one thing I truly hate. Isn't this part of or all of the Hungarian notation? Which has historical roots in early programming?
Can't stand them either. Half the time I'll fat-finger it and type ")" or "+", which means I have to stop and fix it, or look down at the keyboard to make sure my ring-finger is hitting the right key.
-
Well, since John Simmons got his new TV, he probably will be missing for about two days, but for the rest of you: It has been around two years I think since I have asked this question and I am curious as to if people have changed their minds. Do you use/like the "_" to prefix private members? I personal hate variables prefixed with with _underscores _as _it _can _make _reading _code() _a _pain! In the old days of Assembler and some C code, we lived with it all the time, but I had hoped to never see them again. Now much of the code released by MS has private members prefixed. So, what you think?
Rocky <>< Latest Code Blog Post: SQL Server Express Warnings & Tips Latest Tech Blog Post: Microsoft doing it again!
No. I reject such nonsense. When you say: private int NumberOfWheels; ...that makes it pretty clear. I reject comments, prefixes, and anything besides the above to define a variable. Everything you need to know about it is in the definition. I would also avoid basing any decisions on Microsoft sample code.
"Quality Software since 1983!"
http://www.smoothjazzy.com/ - see the "Programming" section for freeware tools and articles. -
Well, since John Simmons got his new TV, he probably will be missing for about two days, but for the rest of you: It has been around two years I think since I have asked this question and I am curious as to if people have changed their minds. Do you use/like the "_" to prefix private members? I personal hate variables prefixed with with _underscores _as _it _can _make _reading _code() _a _pain! In the old days of Assembler and some C code, we lived with it all the time, but I had hoped to never see them again. Now much of the code released by MS has private members prefixed. So, what you think?
Rocky <>< Latest Code Blog Post: SQL Server Express Warnings & Tips Latest Tech Blog Post: Microsoft doing it again!
I am not sure what language(s) you are talking about. However, the C++ standard reserves identifiers beginning with the underscore character[17.4.3.1.2]: "Each name that begins with an underscore is reserved to the implementation for use as a name in the global namespace". Some current styles recommend using a trailing underscore instead, as in private_.
-
No. I reject such nonsense. When you say: private int NumberOfWheels; ...that makes it pretty clear. I reject comments, prefixes, and anything besides the above to define a variable. Everything you need to know about it is in the definition. I would also avoid basing any decisions on Microsoft sample code.
"Quality Software since 1983!"
http://www.smoothjazzy.com/ - see the "Programming" section for freeware tools and articles.It's OK with me if you reject it. I prefer my code to be readable by others. I program in VB6, VB.NET, and C#, depending on who I am programming for. The declaration of a variable is not the only place one see it. If somewhere in the code the reader comes across "NameID", I would like them to know if it is local or module level, if it is int16, int32, or int64. Chances are, someone else will have to support my code at sometime. The easier it is for them to understand it, the better off he and I are. JD Waleska, GA
-
It's OK with me if you reject it. I prefer my code to be readable by others. I program in VB6, VB.NET, and C#, depending on who I am programming for. The declaration of a variable is not the only place one see it. If somewhere in the code the reader comes across "NameID", I would like them to know if it is local or module level, if it is int16, int32, or int64. Chances are, someone else will have to support my code at sometime. The easier it is for them to understand it, the better off he and I are. JD Waleska, GA
I knew someone would mention that, but I didn't bother to head it off at the pass because I figured one would realize that with modern programming tools, that is no longer an issue. The definition of the thing is always available, and even if you're 500 lines away from it, you can always find it easily. Historically, I realize the purpose of hungarian-style notations in the variable name, but modern tools are making that notion obsolete and I prefer not to bog down my code with unnecessary stuff. Programmers coming along later won't have any confusion no matter what notations they are familiar with. If they can't read the variable definition, then they probably shouldn't be writing code in the first place.
"Quality Software since 1983!"
http://www.smoothjazzy.com/ - see the "Programming" section for freeware tools and articles. -
I knew someone would mention that, but I didn't bother to head it off at the pass because I figured one would realize that with modern programming tools, that is no longer an issue. The definition of the thing is always available, and even if you're 500 lines away from it, you can always find it easily. Historically, I realize the purpose of hungarian-style notations in the variable name, but modern tools are making that notion obsolete and I prefer not to bog down my code with unnecessary stuff. Programmers coming along later won't have any confusion no matter what notations they are familiar with. If they can't read the variable definition, then they probably shouldn't be writing code in the first place.
"Quality Software since 1983!"
http://www.smoothjazzy.com/ - see the "Programming" section for freeware tools and articles.Sorry, but I don't take such an elitist view. I am all for new programmers learning, and code excerpts may not always be in the IDE. In addition, code tends to live a long time. You can't always count on the IDE being effective. Look at how MS screwed up the IDE from VB6 to VB.NET. After over 6 years of working with .NET, the IDE is starting to get back to being as useful as it was in 1998. I think how you notate your variables is perfectly fine. I choose to do mine the way I do for specific reasons. I am not likely to change just because Microsoft says so. JD Waleska, GA
-
I Like them! :rose: Why? I'm a VB.NET developer... to write none language dependent code is like coding to interfaces instead of implementations ;P What do I mean? Well to easily convert / write / use code from BOTH c# and VB.Net "_" simplifies a great bit... Mainly because vb.net is not case sensitive. I find the "_" char the least disturbing in reading / skimming through code. The m_ prefix i dislike the m_ prefix as I consider it outdated; as far as I know the m stands for member, and if I want to now a class member I take a look in the Object browser, or use the "Me" (this in c#) ex: Me._myFieldName therefore in my opinion -> m_ adds "nothing". As the previous post states, the _ is used for private members and therefore encapsulated by the class and you work with the public properties / methods instead i.o.w not that big of a problem (in my humble opinion) in contrast to language independence.
I like _them as well. The best way to differentiate easily between local variables and class variables. Combined with NOT having any public class variables this makes code very readable. Decrease in readability would only come from m_ . So that one I do not recommend. :)
-
I am very agreeable with the underscore since it takes advantage of Intellisense for seeing my private/protected fields quickly. It should not matter what you name a field because it should always be accessed through a property. What I would like to hear some opinions on is the naming of User Interface controls such that I don't want my default event handlers looking really crazy i.e. do you: btnValidate buttonValidate validateButton (something else) cneff78
I think awkward abbreviations like btn are a thing of the past thanks to IntelliSense. I always type out full names. I used to use something like validateButton, but I think buttonValidate would be better, since all buttons would be grouped together, along with the button event handlers that get auto-generated. I wish IntelliSense could group variables apart from functions. I hate scrolling through the mixture of the two. Though, I do believe prefixing could solve the sorting issue. Prefix controls with c_, properties with p_, etc. I don't like it, though.
-
Well, since John Simmons got his new TV, he probably will be missing for about two days, but for the rest of you: It has been around two years I think since I have asked this question and I am curious as to if people have changed their minds. Do you use/like the "_" to prefix private members? I personal hate variables prefixed with with _underscores _as _it _can _make _reading _code() _a _pain! In the old days of Assembler and some C code, we lived with it all the time, but I had hoped to never see them again. Now much of the code released by MS has private members prefixed. So, what you think?
Rocky <>< Latest Code Blog Post: SQL Server Express Warnings & Tips Latest Tech Blog Post: Microsoft doing it again!
not for me thanks! I'll live with _'s in uppercase #defines but that's it. What's wrong with a simple 'm' prefix for member variables and 'mp' for pointer members? Adding a type prefix is overkill and exacerbates R.S.I. Maybe it's a British thing... would be interested to know if we've got a cultural coding standards divide!!
-
Phil HardingLuddite
"Historically, Luddites flourished In Britain from about 1811 to 1816. They were bands of men, organized, masked, anonymous, whose object was to destroy machinery used mostly in the textile industry." :wtf: (Is it O.K. to be a Luddite?[^]) Is that what you think about me? :-D
"Throughout human history, we have been dependent on machines to survive. Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony. " - Morpheus
-
I'm not missing. I am working on a series of articles for CP since all the local roads are closed and I can't get to work. :) I only prefix compiler definitions with underscores, like so:
#define _USE_THIS_MSG_ WM_APP+1
I don't prefix variables with underscores, and don't embed variable names with underscores beyond the gratuitous "m_".
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001Wow, I am surprised! I am not sure I would be away from that new TV until my eyes could stand it no longer ;)
Rocky <>< Latest Code Blog Post: SQL Server Express Warnings & Tips Latest Tech Blog Post: Ready for Internet TV?
-
Rocky Moore wrote:
Do you use/like the "_" to prefix private members? I personal hate variables prefixed with with _underscores _as _it _can _make _reading _code() _a _pain! In the old days of Assembler and some C code, we lived with it all the time, but I had hoped to never see them again. Now much of the code released by MS has private members prefixed. So, what you think?
I do in my .NET code. All my class member variables are _ prefixed. Of course most of the time, I access them via Properties rather than directly using the variable. I can't remembered why I moved to _ prefix. It was either because FxCop whined about it or because of some VB issue. In C++, I used m_ so the _prefix is kind of keeping up a long tradition.
Michael CP Blog [^] Development Blog [^]
Yeah, back in C/C++ I used m_ with along with hungarian notation until 2001 when I moved to .NET and documentation said in the new world we would drop prefixes. For a while I wondered how I would survive without them, but now there is no way to go back :)
Rocky <>< Latest Code Blog Post: SQL Server Express Warnings & Tips Latest Tech Blog Post: Ready for Internet TV?
-
I use '_' as a suffix for private member data (which means either all member data of a class or none of it) in C++. However, the rest of the naming is camel-case (capitalized for functions and classes):
class SampleClass { public: int SomeMethod() const; private: int aDataMember_; };Curious, why would you? The only value I have seen anyone mention is for intellisense, so it groups all the local variables together. Is there another reason to not just use a variable name with any extentions?
Rocky <>< Latest Code Blog Post: SQL Server Express Warnings & Tips Latest Tech Blog Post: Ready for Internet TV?
-
Well I like using some prefix. either 'm_' or just the '_'. With C++ for example you can use the 'this' keyword to differentiate but i find it more annoying and confusing to read code this way as I'm sure many programmers do.
Well, I am in the camp of those that think "this.myDatabase" seems pretty clear ;)
Rocky <>< Latest Code Blog Post: SQL Server Express Warnings & Tips Latest Tech Blog Post: Ready for Internet TV?
-
Curious, why would you? The only value I have seen anyone mention is for intellisense, so it groups all the local variables together. Is there another reason to not just use a variable name with any extentions?
Rocky <>< Latest Code Blog Post: SQL Server Express Warnings & Tips Latest Tech Blog Post: Ready for Internet TV?
So that there's a concrete reminder of which names are class members in methods, I guess. Habit as well :-) It works for me, anyway.
-
I appear to be in the minority here but I *always* use the underscore to prefix private members. I do this for 2 reasons: 1.) As noted by another commentor, I consider the m_ wholly antiquated and sorely reminiscent of old school VB 2.) whenever I write a new class, especially in something like a data layer, I name my members the same as my field names in my database, but of course I have Properties also and then should also have the same name, so I end up with a simple _fieldName notation. It makes for eacy copy & paste. I'm right, that is all ;)
lotuspro wrote:
I consider the m_ wholly antiquated and sorely reminiscent of old school VB
Well, if you started in Assembler or C, you would consdier the "_" wholly antiquated as we put up with those things for years. The "m_" prefix was considered a relief :)
Rocky <>< Latest Code Blog Post: SQL Server Express Warnings & Tips Latest Tech Blog Post: Ready for Internet TV?